The Three GoalsThe mission of the new <strong>Peace</strong> Corps would be boldand different from anything seen before. <strong>Peace</strong> CorpsVolunteers would not work for the Foreign Service or anaid agency; they would go abroad in a new capacity—<strong>to</strong> teach or build or work in the communities <strong>to</strong> whichthey were sent, serving local institutions and living withthe people they were helping.Later Harris Wofford wrote, “Some members of the taskforce insisted that Shriver and the President choosea single purpose or at least settle for a main one.Shriver found the tension between competing purposescreative, and thought it should continue. ’<strong>Peace</strong>’ wasthe overriding purpose, and the process of promotingit was necessarily complex, he said, so the <strong>Peace</strong> Corpsshould learn <strong>to</strong> live with the complexity. Finally weagreed on three propositions about the program.” 5The three goals of the <strong>Peace</strong> Corps would be <strong>to</strong>help the people of interested countries meet theirneed for trained workers; <strong>to</strong> help promote a betterunderstanding of Americans in the communitieswhere volunteers served; and <strong>to</strong> help promote a betterunderstanding among Americans of other cultures andpeoples. This third goal is sometimes referred <strong>to</strong> as“bringing the <strong>Peace</strong> Corps back home.”The founders of the <strong>Peace</strong> Corps thought the path<strong>to</strong> peace and security was through the interaction ofthese three goals—a bold vision first expressed atthe height of the Cold War, and one that is relevant<strong>to</strong>day in the fight against terrorism around the world.The creation of the <strong>Peace</strong> Corps was a commitment bythe United States <strong>to</strong> a unique new policy, <strong>to</strong> send oursons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and evengrandmothers and grandfathers <strong>to</strong> leave the comfor<strong>to</strong>f their homes and serve abroad for two years inoften harsh conditions and in the service of the hostcommunities and countries.PEACE AS THEOVERRIDING PURPOSEWhile Shriver embraced the complexity of promotingpeace, the <strong>Peace</strong> Corps itself has sometimes struggled<strong>to</strong> give equal consideration <strong>to</strong> all three goals. Tocounteract the criticism that promoting a betterunderstanding of Americans around the world wasjust a public relations venture or, worse, propaganda,the Shriver report emphasized the reciprocal learningthat would occur from sending Americans abroad. Theknowledge they would bring home of other culturesand America’s role in the world would help <strong>to</strong> build acitizenry with international perspectives and interests.President Kennedy hoped it would lead <strong>to</strong> a moreinformed U.S. foreign policy, and hoped many Returned<strong>Peace</strong> Corps Volunteers would enter the Foreign Serviceand other forms of public service where their influencewould have direct impact on policy.“T HE PEACE CORPS IS NOT AN INSTRUMENTOF FOREIGN POLICY, BECAUSE TO MAKE IT SOWOULD ROB IT OF ITS CONTRIBUTION TOFOREIGN POLICY”—Dean Rusk, U.S. Secretary of State, 1961-1969As our survey results show, Kennedy’s hope hasbecome a reality, but on a much smaller scale than heintended. The <strong>Peace</strong> Corps has been most successful atpromoting peace through mutual understanding anda greater appreciation of both American values andforeign cultures. But the founders of the <strong>Peace</strong> Corpsalso recognized that for <strong>Peace</strong> Corps Volunteers <strong>to</strong> bewelcome in foreign countries, they must provide whatKennedy promised: “help foreign lands meet theirurgent needs for trained workers.” 6 This challenge hasbeen met less successfully as the skills of workers indeveloping countries have grown over the decadeswhile the <strong>Peace</strong> Corps model of sending largely recentcollege graduates abroad has remained unchanged.The majority of RPCVs rated their service as very orfairly effective in meeting the three goals (figure 1).Eighty-two percent said their service was very or fairlyeffective at helping promote a better understanding ofAmericans in the communities where RPCVs served (33percent very effective). In the five decades of the <strong>Peace</strong>Corps existence, this view has been mostly consistent.RPCVs who served in Eastern Europe (86 percent), Asiaand the Pacific Region (85 percent), along with theMiddle East and most of Africa (81 percent), reportedconsistently high percentages. Those who served inNorth Africa were the least likely <strong>to</strong> feel this way(77 percent).Seventy-nine percent rate their service as very or fairlyeffective at helping promote a better understanding ofother peoples on the part of Americans (34 percent veryeffective). This view has remained relatively consistent,with 81 and 80 percent of respondents from the 1980sand 2000s, respectively, reporting effectiveness. Thepercentage of respondents reporting effectivenesswas slightly smaller in the 1960s, with 78 percent.5 Wofford, H. (1980). Of Kennedys & Kings, Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.6 Ibid.| 12A CALL TO PEACE SEPTEMBER 2011
Those serving in predominantly Muslim countries in NorthAfrica and the Middle East were also successful in thisendeavor, with 79 percent and 76 percent, respectively,reporting that their efforts had been effective.The goal that rated the lowest among RPCVs was helpingpeople of interested communities meet their need fortrained workers; just 59 percent of RPCVs felt their servicewas very or fairly effective in meeting this goal (20percent very effective). And while the effectiveness of theirservice in achieving the two cultural goals was consistentacross decades, RPCVs in the 2000s were the least likely(54 percent) <strong>to</strong> report their experience as very or fairlyeffective in meeting this goal. The level of effectivenessalso varied greatly across different regions. Those RPCVsfrom Southern Africa were the most likely <strong>to</strong> report (67percent) that this goal was met fairly effectively. Thosereturning from the Middle East reported the lowest levelof success (52 percent).While most RPCVs felt needed and welcomed in theircommunities (48 percent said this describes theirexperience very well) and believed the work they weregiven <strong>to</strong> do was meaningful (49 percent said very well),less than one-third were confident they had achievedtheir assignment goals (30 percent describes very well)perhaps in part because just 25 percent characterizedtheir assignments as “well defined” and felt they wereadequately prepared <strong>to</strong> carry them out.Figure 2: How well does each describe your<strong>Peace</strong> Corps experience?Figure 1: Achieving the Three GoalsIn describing their experiences in an open formquestion, 33 percent said the “best thing” about beinga <strong>Peace</strong> Corps Volunteer was the people they met, lifelongfriendships they formed, and being accepted andwelcomed by the local community. Thirty-one percentsaid the “best thing” was living in a foreign countryand immersion in a new culture. Only 9 percent said asense of accomplishment in making a difference wasthe “best thing” about their experience.Goal 1: Helping people of interested countriesmeet their needs for trained men and womenThe first goal, transferring skills <strong>to</strong> developing countries byhelping them meet their needs for trained workers, scoredthe lowest of the three among our survey respondents.It is important <strong>to</strong> remember, however, that the <strong>Peace</strong>Corps founders viewed peace—not development—asthe agency’s overriding purpose. 7 The U.S. governmenthad, and still has, other aid programs and developmentassistance, chief among these <strong>to</strong>day are U.S. AID and theMillennium Challenge Corporation.More recent RPCVs were also less likely <strong>to</strong> feel neededin the community (76 percent of RPCVs from the 2000ssaid this describes their experience well/fairly well,compared <strong>to</strong> 86 percent of RPCVs from the 1960s) andless likely <strong>to</strong> feel their assignments were meaningfuland had an impact (74 percent of RPCVs from the2000s said this describes their experience well/fairly well, compared <strong>to</strong> 86 percent from the 1960s).Furthermore, RPCVs from the 2000s compared <strong>to</strong> thosefrom the 1960s were less likely <strong>to</strong> feel they achievedtheir assignment goals (RPCV responses showed a 9percent decline from 1960s <strong>to</strong> 2000s), less likely <strong>to</strong> feelthey were adequately prepared (11 percent decline),and less likely <strong>to</strong> feel that their projects were welldefined (19 percent decline).7 Ibid.A CALL TO PEACE SEPTEMBER 201113|